Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
9445
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 15:56:43 GMT
ME1 is still my favorite game in the series. It's the most recent ME game that I've played as well before anyone throws out the rose colored glasses reply. I honestly think the games have gotten worse as they've gone along. The only that's improved is the combat, but that's low on my list of things that make an RPG enjoyable. In ME1 the introduction to the races, the lore, everything just makes the game interesting. Saren was a great character. I hated him, wanted to kill, then finally felt sorry for him, and was happy he got to go out on his own terms. Virmire is still my favorite mission in the series. Contrast this to ME:A, which really didn't have that much depth to it. There wasn't really any lore or history to it. The villains were weak, never feared them, never hated them, never really felt much for them at all. The crew didn't really stand for anything, they all just had their personal issues. You didn't have a Wrex who told you about the Krogan rebellions, or spoke up for his people when you found rachni or were going to destroy the base on Virmire. You have Ashley who was a nationalist/xenophobe whichever one you choose. She didn't really trust the aliens on her crew and was willing to kill one if he didn't go along with the plan. You got the crew as part of the story, Ashely was defending Eden Prime, Garrus was investigating Saren, Tali had the evidence about Saren, Liara was the Prothean expert and her mother was helping Saren. In ME:A, people just show up in the middle of the desert and tag along. ME1 was a story set in a galaxy of many stories, that was just deep and intriguing. In ME:A is felt like they created the entire galaxy to fit this one story and there was nothing else. Advanced race created these vaults > vaults can only be used by Ryder > Ryder can only use these vaults with the help of the advanced SAM > Ryder only has advanced SAM because the father died. Your role wasn't being a Pathfinder, it was activating vaults and fighting Kett. I didn't hate ME:A, but aside from the combat, the rest I found to be just meh, and if the combat is the best aspect of an RPG to me, then odds are I didn't like the game. ME1 > ME3 > ME2 > ME:A, last two could be swapped depending on when you ask me. I didn't start praising ME2 when ME:3 came out, and I didn;t start praising DA2 when DA:I came out. I didn't really like either second installment when I played them originally, and that didn;t change much after I played the games that followed them. Strangely, I feel the same way about ME1 as you do ME:A. |
|
azarhal
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
Posts: 9,749 Likes: 27,631
Member is Online
inherit
1519
0
Member is Online
Nov 25, 2024 21:21:39 GMT
27,631
azarhal
9,749
Sept 9, 2016 12:15:16 GMT
September 2016
azarhal
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR, Mass Effect Legendary Edition
|
Post by azarhal on Nov 1, 2017 15:58:41 GMT
I think what has been overlooked is starting conditions and expectations, which were not equal between the games. -ME2 continued that upward trend generally (not sure what blowback there was on the forums as I wasn't around back then) and a loyal, edging towards obsessed, fanbase continued to develop. ... Frankly I'm surprised by a few things I'm seeing here. Like people disliking ME2, or that there was significant resistance to it when it first came out. "They changed it so it sucks" is true on some level for just about anything, and while I wasn't on the forums for ME1-ME2, I was on the forums for ME2-ME3 and recall no complaints about changes in game mechanics. ME2 destroyed the BioWare fandom causing it to split into two: pre-ME2 and post-ME2 fans. ME2 brought over new fans who do not like pre-ME2 BioWare games as much and they gets prissy when BioWare tries to put pre-ME2 elements back in, while the pre-ME2 fans were pissed with all the streamlining, more linear, less RPG and more action design (and lots of them just plain stopped buying BioWare games which then turned into them hating the company for not making the games they want, there is a bit of EA-hate compounded into that too). The BioWare fandom story is very much a "love turns to hate" story with every new game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
9445
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 16:00:46 GMT
People do this with any franchise. "Halo 5 is the worst halo ever" *after H4 was previously declared that*. You could say some can't "adapt" to change (although simply changing isn't good, there needs to be an actual beneficial purpose to it), some just like to harp on the newst iteration yet, etc etc. I will say "if" i were to be one who disliked ME2 or 3, I wouldn't all of a sudden like them just cause Andromeda was worse. Shit is still shit in the end, it just means Andromeda is more shit  it's one thing I can't stand about the halo fanbase. People aren't all of a sudden liking H4 because of H5 being bad, they merely have a new target to hit so the previous one is forgotten. It's like DA2 hasn't all of a sudden gotten better, people have simply forgotten about it with inquisitions release and the same applies to ME3 (to an extent anyways, an abomination ending won't be easy to forget when it's meant to be the conclusion to a series). I prefer ME1 over the rest (and DA:O) as they were actual RPGs that didn't focus on action. It's the action priorities since then that you'll see me harp on. So would that classify as hating change? You could say that, but I do have a reason at least. It'd be like if Mass effect all of a sudden went first person shooter, I bet 70% of you would lose your mind over that 😁 That's exactly how I feel with them continuously dumbing down the RPG and going more shooter/hack and slash with their newer games (ME2+DA2 and onwards). I still play/like them, but I'll easily take the originals over the following iterations after. I remember that with Halo... Halo 2 is still best halo.  Disagree on ME:A being "more shit." Still better than anything else I played in 2017. I can understand the gripes about RPG elements, but "real RPGs" have a bad habit of controlling like ass. It seems to be a universal theme with them. I would gladly take a streamlined and decently handling ME2 over a clunky and needlessly bloated ME1. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
9445
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 16:03:35 GMT
Having just replayed the trilogy, I think ME2 is still the most fun. ME1 was still very fun despite its problems with combat. I think you're selling the actual game short because the combat has aged so poorly. ME3 was in some ways the best game of the three because of the 'stakes' and pacing, but ME2 just has a spark. But playing them all so close in time really did accentuate how different the games are from one another for me. You can't really ignore that post-EA the series changed to become less RPG and more streamlined shooter than its first indie installment, and ME3 was a very hard turn away from its roots. Part of it was the short development timeline, maybe. But compare this to TES, for example, where changes to the series happen, but not so drastically. People tend to be welcoming of changes that add options (*cough* except for LGBT romances *cough*), but not so welcoming of changes that subtract options. The difference between ME1 and ME3 is dramatic. So people who jumped on early and were upset to lose certain elements in ME2 were predictably even more upset when ME3 launched because it was practically just a shooter with some dialogue options. So while I like all three games and even MEA (my least favorite), I see why this fandom's original base was so unhappy compared to other fandoms. ME1 didn't "age poorly," it's controls, mechanics, and gameplay were dated from the jump. All I see with this fanbase is entitlement and resistance to change. (And lets leave the political shit outta this one, m'kay?) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
9445
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 16:07:04 GMT
My order is ME3 > ME1/2 > MEA. I wanted to love MEA, I was convinced I would since I loved every BW game I have played up until now, but it was incredibly disappointing to me. Everything was a weak rehash of what the OT had done before, and what the OT did way way better. MEA had a weak villain, a weak story, weak characters, weak soundtrack, weak protagonist. I didn't care for most of the squadmates, I didn't care enough for Ryder. They could've gone so wild with this game if they planned it as standalone. Instead we get a slogfest with boring open world design, and without any significant choices. I thought they learned from the previous ME's, but nope. Perhaps it was the new team. I feel sorry for them and what happened to them as a result, and I certainly did not hate MEA, but it was just mediocre all the way. And the biggest disappointment for me was the weak-ass dialogue system and the combat. I actually prefer ME1 combat to MEA, and before anyone says anything: different folks, different strokes You may want to get professional help for that...  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
9445
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 16:07:52 GMT
For me, despite the ending debacle, ME3 > ME2 > ME1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> MEA. So I obviously disagree with the contention that the latest game is always considered the worst one. I liked each game in the OT better than the previous one, but the OT as a whole was pretty amazing. MEA however, represents a shocking, almost precipitous drop in quality, to the point where it doesn't even feel like a Mass Effect game to me. YMMV. Shocking drop in quality? Did we play the same game or did I get the one "good" copy? |
|
inherit
3439
0
Member is Online
Nov 25, 2024 21:28:12 GMT
9,653
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,050
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Nov 1, 2017 16:19:16 GMT
They just became more dumbed-down, streamlined Battlefield clones which are turning more and more in to shooter first and rpg second. ME1 is garbage from a gameplay, mechanics, and controls department. ME2 was significantly better, albeit still clunky. If you can't see that, then the only logical conclusion that I can come to is that you are a casual player. Nothing wrong with that, but calling the improvements made to the ME franchise after ME1 "more dumbed-down, streamlined Battlefield clones" is ignorant... at best. That might be a bit unfair. Let's ignore the rhetoric and whether a game fits into the box labelled "RPG." If your personal tastes lean strongly towards stat-based combat over input-based combat -- if you prefer using a number-crunching skillset over a physical skillset -- then ME2 can be worse for you than ME1. ME3 and ME:A being worse than ME2 is a little harder to see, but more options might make things worse for you if those options are of a type you don't like using in the first place. |
|
Iakus
N7
Games: Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
Posts: 21,290 Likes: 50,645
inherit
402
0
Dec 21, 2018 17:35:11 GMT
50,645
Iakus
21,290
August 2016
iakus
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda, SWTOR
|
Post by Iakus on Nov 1, 2017 16:22:06 GMT
From all my years of lurking and posting on the various iterations of the BioWare forums and other boards that have hosted Mass Effect discussion topics, I have come to the conclusion that this fanbase has the mindset of "everything new sucks" and that it is never happy with anything nor will it ever be. After every new installment of the ME franchise, the general consensus of the "fans" is that the latest game is the worst. When a new game comes out, said game that was previously the worst is now pretty much universally loved or, at the very least, the majority opinion is quite positive. I have witnessed this phenomenon when ME2, 3, and Andromeda released and in retrospect discussions (ME:A is TBA in this regard as not enough time has passed). Upon ME2's release, all I heard where gripes and complaints and how EA had "ruined" Mass Effect. Upon ME3's release, we had the REEEEEEEEEEEtatsrophy over the ending and all of the cringey shit that went along with that outrage and again, EA had "ruined" Mass Effect. Now ME:A is out and I again hear the usual "OMG ITZ TEH WURST GUISE!!!!1" and more "EA has ruined Mass Effect." The first game is the only one that seems to have received universal praise and continues to, despite the fact that it is a nightmare to actually play and fails at being the slightest bit fun. It leads me to come to the conclusion that the fanbase is extremely change resistant and take the "everything new sucks" attitude to heart. Is that all RPG gamers, incredibly nitpicky and never satisfied? Or is this just unique to the BW "fan" base? Or do I just not "get it" due to me being primarily a competitive online sorta gamer? Really, I'm baffled at the attitude. It makes the phrase "Mass Effect fan" seem like an oxymoron and frankly, I'm a little put off. MEA is not a terrible game. It's just terribly mediocre. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
5402
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 16:22:51 GMT
Worst statement I've heard on any Bioware forum. They just became more dumbed-down, streamlined Battlefield clones which are turning more and more in to shooter first and rpg second. ME:A had 5 years...5 YEARS!( ME1, ME2 and ME3 had 2-3 years between each) to work out all the problems it shipped with. It's not my problem they couldn't get their shit straight. I'm a consumer that only cares about the end product as all consumers are. While I liked the game enough to buy and play it that doesn't mean I have to be happy with the way it shipped. ME1 is garbage from a gameplay, mechanics, and controls department. ME2 was significantly better, albeit still clunky. If you can't see that, then the only logical conclusion that I can come to is that you are a casual player. Nothing wrong with that, but calling the improvements made to the ME franchise after ME1 "more dumbed-down, streamlined Battlefield clones" is ignorant... at best.  I'm not saying ME:A is the best ME game, ME2 and ME3 trump it by a decent margin, and the barely functional state it came out in is absolutely inexcusable, but all of the REEEEEEEEEEE'ing about how ME:A is "teh wurst gaem evar!!!!!!!!1" is just trite overreactions by the loud and whiny. Really? Let's take a look at this buddy... From ME1 you could control every aspect of you and your companions i.e. Armor, Weapons, Skills and Mods which slowly took a hit in ME2 to ME3. Then we get ME:A which took away EVERY opportunity to change anything. Some saw this as good while others (like myself) saw it as further dumbing down. What else would you call it? Then we can also look at the higher emphasis on shooting mechanics over powers which is clearly seen in ME:A. Powers in this game are far weaker than they've ever been to the point that you're less efficient and slower at killing than just using your weapon. In ME1 and ME2 you had to choose your skills wisely based off of the limited skill points available. In ME3 and ME:A you can literally unlock EVERY skill in the game with zero repercussions. I had to arbitrarily gimp myself so I wouldn't be some crazy killing god. As far as I've seen it Bioware has slowly been in transition towards a shooter first... It should go without saying that this is my opinion but this is the BSN after all... |
|
inherit
Korean Supermodel
1
0
1
7,464
Cyonan
2,189
Jul 31, 2016 20:55:30 GMT
July 2016
admin
Cyonan
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights, Jade Empire
Cyonan
|
Post by Cyonan on Nov 1, 2017 16:23:02 GMT
4.) B-Team? Sure. Still better than the rest of the AAA swamp? Most definitely. Actually if we're talking purely about game quality I would put Andromeda as one of the weaker games in AAA gaming. To be honest the only game I played this year I'd probably rate lower than ME:A is Prey, and that even started off considerably stronger but fucked it up when they decided to throw a lot of it out the window 2 hours in and let the game try to stand on the mediocre FPS mechanics. I never actually even finished that game. I'd even rate indie games like Playerunknown's Battlegrounds above it(which honestly despite still being in early access already has less technical issues than ME:A at launch did). You can call me loud and whiny all you want but the fact is that the game's good shooting mechanics don't make it hold up enough when pretty much everything else I didn't care much for in the game(even characters which is supposed to be BioWare's strongest point, I really only liked Drack). As I said before if I wanted a good shooter there are a lot of other options for me, and the rest of the game didn't impress me a whole lot so I'm not going to be playing ME:A for those elements. It's the only modern BioWare game that I didn't do another playthrough within about a month or two of finishing. |
|
inherit
3439
0
Member is Online
Nov 25, 2024 21:28:12 GMT
9,653
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,050
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Nov 1, 2017 16:26:19 GMT
ME2 destroyed the BioWare fandom causing it to split into two: pre-ME2 and post-ME2 fans. ME2 brought over new fans who do not like pre-ME2 BioWare games as much and they gets prissy when BioWare tries to put pre-ME2 elements back in, while the pre-ME2 fans were pissed with all the streamlining, more linear, less RPG and more action design (and lots of them just plain stopped buying BioWare games which then turned into them hating the company for not making the games they want, there is a bit of EA-hate compounded into that too). The BioWare fandom story is very much a "love turns to hate" story with every new game. Doing series makes this approach worse. Back in the day NWN caused quite a fuss, but the devs could legitimately say -- and did say -- that they had never claimed that NWN was going to be BG3. |
|
inherit
Psi-Cop
38
0
Feb 21, 2019 15:55:45 GMT
10,231
CrutchCricket
The Emperor Daft Serious
4,577
August 2016
crutchcricket
CrutchCricket
Mass Effect Trilogy
|
Post by CrutchCricket on Nov 1, 2017 16:31:42 GMT
Hmmm... I'd say that the main issue is again one of expectation. The theme of the game is entirely different from ME1, it's not objectively worse or anything. There were some problems as well. The whole resurrection story line was rather redundant and immersion breaking even in a sci-fi setting. The story itself didn't have a lot of "meat" aside from recruiting companions, although that was a lesser issue for me personally. Overall I think ME2 was a decent game with an interesting story. Was the theme different? The aesthetic certainly was. One thing I remember being said is that Mass Effect was an homage to 70s and 80s sci-fi in terms of visuals and tone while Mass Effect 2 was more 90s. And one thing that again amazed me when I first played it was the flawless transitioning of my character from game to game via the save importing. That really helped tie them together, even if it was subjective. And yeah, while the resurrection thing and associated effects were awkward and unneeded, did it take you out of the experience the first time? Again, when you sit down and start thinking about it, yeah it's dumb and hurt the series more than it helped. But jumping in the second game right after the first, the magic was in full swing. Maybe people that had to wait in between had a different experience. What you forget is that prior to MEA was DAI, which was the fastest selling Bioware game, high review scores, and multiple GOTY awards. Yes, they are both different franchises and one is from Montreal and the other is Edmonton, but at the end of the day Bioware is Bioware and after the high riding DAI and lessons learned from both MET and DAI, MEA was expected to perform. I don't know DA but from what I've seen it's fairly separate in terms of fanbase. Obviously there is plenty of overlap but outside of fans of both, I'm not sure the series are so tied together as to be associated in the public consciousness. Beyond that, from what I've overheard DA games have a lighter version of some of the complaints of ME. ME2 destroyed the BioWare fandom causing it to split into two: pre-ME2 and post-ME2 fans. ME2 brought over new fans who do not like pre-ME2 BioWare games as much and they gets prissy when BioWare tries to put pre-ME2 elements back in, while the pre-ME2 fans were pissed with all the streamlining, more linear, less RPG and more action design (and lots of them just plain stopped buying BioWare games which then turned into them hating the company for not making the games they want, there is a bit of EA-hate compounded into that too). The BioWare fandom story is very much a "love turns to hate" story with every new game. Yeah, I've seen zero evidence of this, in all the time I've been here. Unless the other side of this schism just vanished off the face of BSN. And if you consider me in the "post-ME2 fans" camp, I haven't seen earlier features being reintroduced that were suddenly complained about. Do you have any examples? |
|
inherit
3439
0
Member is Online
Nov 25, 2024 21:28:12 GMT
9,653
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,050
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Nov 1, 2017 16:39:17 GMT
Let's take a look at this buddy... From ME1 you could control every aspect of you and your companions i.e. Armor, Weapons, Skills and Mods which slowly took a hit in ME2 to ME3. Isn't ME3 superior to ME2 in this aspect, even by your own standards? This is not very accurate. In ME1 you don't have useful skill choices in the late game since you'll have all the skills at a high level -- all high level ME1 characters of the same class play the same. (And at the low levels the rational strategy is to race to unlock stuff, so there's not much difference there either.) ME2 is weak, yes, but ME3 is better because you have more possible skill evolutions. And as for ME3, unlocking everything requires a seriously completionist run, doesn't it? You've got a serious point to make -- don't muddle it up with nonsense. |
|
inherit
1544
0
Feb 25, 2021 11:56:07 GMT
2,466
Andrew Lucas
1,562
Sept 11, 2016 18:33:18 GMT
September 2016
andrewlucas
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Andrew Lucas on Nov 1, 2017 16:39:30 GMT
From all my years of lurking and posting on the various iterations of the BioWare forums and other boards that have hosted Mass Effect discussion topics, I have come to the conclusion that this fanbase has the mindset of "everything new sucks" and that it is never happy with anything nor will it ever be. After every new installment of the ME franchise, the general consensus of the "fans" is that the latest game is the worst. When a new game comes out, said game that was previously the worst is now pretty much universally loved or, at the very least, the majority opinion is quite positive. I have witnessed this phenomenon when ME2, 3, and Andromeda released and in retrospect discussions (ME:A is TBA in this regard as not enough time has passed). Upon ME2's release, all I heard where gripes and complaints and how EA had "ruined" Mass Effect. Upon ME3's release, we had the REEEEEEEEEEEtatsrophy over the ending and all of the cringey shit that went along with that outrage and again, EA had "ruined" Mass Effect. Now ME:A is out and I again hear the usual "OMG ITZ TEH WURST GUISE!!!!1" and more "EA has ruined Mass Effect." The first game is the only one that seems to have received universal praise and continues to, despite the fact that it is a nightmare to actually play and fails at being the slightest bit fun. It leads me to come to the conclusion that the fanbase is extremely change resistant and take the "everything new sucks" attitude to heart. Is that all RPG gamers, incredibly nitpicky and never satisfied? Or is this just unique to the BW "fan" base? Or do I just not "get it" due to me being primarily a competitive online sorta gamer? Really, I'm baffled at the attitude. It makes the phrase "Mass Effect fan" seem like an oxymoron and frankly, I'm a little put off. MEA is not a terrible game. It's just terribly mediocre. In a nutshell. |
|
inherit
Psi-Cop
38
0
Feb 21, 2019 15:55:45 GMT
10,231
CrutchCricket
The Emperor Daft Serious
4,577
August 2016
crutchcricket
CrutchCricket
Mass Effect Trilogy
|
Post by CrutchCricket on Nov 1, 2017 16:41:28 GMT
Then we can also look at the higher emphasis on shooting mechanics over powers which is clearly seen in ME:A. Powers in this game are far weaker than they've ever been to the point that you're less efficient and slower at killing than just using your weapon. In ME1 and ME2 you had to choose your skills wisely based off of the limited skill points available. In ME3 and ME:A you can literally unlock EVERY skill in the game with zero repercussions. I had to arbitrarily gimp myself so I wouldn't be some crazy killing god. Wait, are powers so weak you need guns to kill everything, or do you have to "gimp yourself" on powers so you're not some sort of god? Can't have both. |
|
inherit
688
0
1,913
UutIVvdPw7END0Ef
1,523
August 2016
uutivvdpw7end0ef
Bottom
|
Post by UutIVvdPw7END0Ef on Nov 1, 2017 16:43:27 GMT
It has to do with Publishers "AAAifing" known games, you can just look at the amount of DLCs between ME and ME2.
A new game is introduced usually without different Editions or tons of DLCs/Season Pass, Microtransactions/Loot Boxes.
If the game is successful the next game is getting the "AAA" stamp of multiple game Editions, DLCs/Season Pass, Microtransactions/Loot Boxes, to squeeze more money.
You can also see that with Dead Space series and many other games.
|
|
inherit
1544
0
Feb 25, 2021 11:56:07 GMT
2,466
Andrew Lucas
1,562
Sept 11, 2016 18:33:18 GMT
September 2016
andrewlucas
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by Andrew Lucas on Nov 1, 2017 16:43:36 GMT
4.) B-Team? Sure. Still better than the rest of the AAA swamp? Most definitely. Actually if we're talking purely about game quality I would put Andromeda as one of the weaker games in AAA gaming. To be honest the only game I played this year I'd probably rate lower than ME:A is Prey, and that even started off considerably stronger but fucked it up when they decided to throw a lot of it out the window 2 hours in and let the game try to stand on the mediocre FPS mechanics. I never actually even finished that game. I'd even rate indie games like Playerunknown's Battlegrounds above it(which honestly despite still being in early access already has less technical issues than ME:A at launch did). You can call me loud and whiny all you want but the fact is that the game's good shooting mechanics don't make it hold up enough when pretty much everything else I didn't care much for in the game(even characters which is supposed to be BioWare's strongest point, I really only liked Drack). As I said before if I wanted a good shooter there are a lot of other options for me, and the rest of the game didn't impress me a whole lot so I'm not going to be playing ME:A for those elements. It's the only modern BioWare game that I didn't do another playthrough within about a month or two of finishing. Pretty much this. There's a reason the game flopped critically and financially, Montreal got shut down, not a single DLC, the series is on hiatus and the MP is getting even more reduced support considering ME3's got EA more money than MEA did, it's pretty obvious. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
5402
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 16:43:59 GMT
Then we can also look at the higher emphasis on shooting mechanics over powers which is clearly seen in ME:A. Powers in this game are far weaker than they've ever been to the point that you're less efficient and slower at killing than just using your weapon. In ME1 and ME2 you had to choose your skills wisely based off of the limited skill points available. In ME3 and ME:A you can literally unlock EVERY skill in the game with zero repercussions. I had to arbitrarily gimp myself so I wouldn't be some crazy killing god. Wait, are powers so weak you need guns to kill everything, or do you have to "gimp yourself" on powers so you're not some sort of god? Can't have both. Gimping myself on powers based off of the passives. It's pretty obvious you can't have all the powers at once but maybe I still should have pointed that out... |
|
inherit
3439
0
Member is Online
Nov 25, 2024 21:28:12 GMT
9,653
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,050
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Nov 1, 2017 16:49:48 GMT
Was the theme different? The aesthetic certainly was. One thing I remember being said is that Mass Effect was an homage to 70s and 80s sci-fi in terms of visuals and tone while Mass Effect 2 was more 90s. I was never quite sure which SF properties were supposed to be in the 70s-80s and 90s categories. Anyone have candidates? Well, a lot of the most vocal anti-ME2 fans from the old boards did disappear. Terror_K and Gatt9, for instance, didn't make it far into the ME3 era. |
|
inherit
3439
0
Member is Online
Nov 25, 2024 21:28:12 GMT
9,653
alanc9
Old Scientist Contrarian
8,050
February 2017
alanc9
|
Post by alanc9 on Nov 1, 2017 16:51:00 GMT
Wait, are powers so weak you need guns to kill everything, or do you have to "gimp yourself" on powers so you're not some sort of god? Can't have both. Gimping myself on powers based off of the passives. It's pretty obvious you can't have all the powers at once but maybe I still should have pointed that out... What do you mean by "powers based off of the passives"? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
5402
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 16:51:58 GMT
Let's take a look at this buddy... From ME1 you could control every aspect of you and your companions i.e. Armor, Weapons, Skills and Mods which slowly took a hit in ME2 to ME3. Isn't ME3 superior to ME2 in this aspect, even by your own standards? This is not very accurate. In ME1 you don't have useful skill choices in the late game since you'll have all the skills at a high level -- all high level ME1 characters of the same class play the same. (And at the low levels the rational strategy is to race to unlock stuff, so there's not much difference there either.) ME2 is weak, yes, but ME3 is better because you have more possible skill evolutions. And as for ME3, unlocking everything requires a seriously completionist run, doesn't it? You've got a serious point to make -- don't muddle it up with nonsense. Your first quote makes zero sense to me so you'll have to elaborate. Your max level in ME1 is 60 so unless you're playing with a mod you'll have to choose a limited number of skills. You can't max them all. I've played every class in ME1 and never felt they played the same. I'm not trying to put ME1 on a pedestal, just showing the over all decline of player control. ME2 for me was a huge step in the right direction when it got rid of the open world concept. I've never been a big fan of how Bioware has done it. ME2 at least still gave me a good amount of control over my companions (enough to keep me happy). ME:A took it all out of my hands. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
5402
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 16:55:15 GMT
Gimping myself on powers based off of the passives. It's pretty obvious you can't have all the powers at once but maybe I still should have pointed that out... What do you mean by "powers based off of the passives"? You sure you played ME:A or are you just f"ing with me? For every point you put in a skill group you get a bonus to damage and force or even more shield depending on which you choose. |
|
inherit
Psi-Cop
38
0
Feb 21, 2019 15:55:45 GMT
10,231
CrutchCricket
The Emperor Daft Serious
4,577
August 2016
crutchcricket
CrutchCricket
Mass Effect Trilogy
|
Post by CrutchCricket on Nov 1, 2017 17:07:07 GMT
I was never quite sure which SF properties were supposed to be in the 70s-80s and 90s categories. Anyone have candidates? Hmm, to be honest I'm not sure. I heard that statement when I first started hanging around teh forums and while I can see some things (the techno score of ME1, the Rubber Forehead Aliens initialy introduced and the pristine setting of the Citadel being evocative of Star Trek vs the more grungy wild locations of the second game), now that the series as a whole seems to me like it borrowed more than a little from Babylon 5, it's harder to tell. Certainly you can point out direct shout-outs. But I'd have to look into it for more overall homage. |
|
inherit
7106
0
4,137
samhain444
1,669
April 2017
samhain444
Mass Effect Trilogy, Dragon Age: Origins, Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquistion, KOTOR, Baldur's Gate, Jade Empire, Mass Effect Andromeda
|
Post by samhain444 on Nov 1, 2017 17:18:51 GMT
Based on all the games I've played this year - Final Fantasy XV, Prey, Resident Evil VII, Shadow of War, Horizon Zero Dawn - the only one that I've played and enjoyed more than Mass Effect Andromeda is Horizon Zero Dawn. All the others had their pluses but they weren't as fun.
Despite this, I recognize its flaws and could understand why someone may not enjoy it as much. They really should have focused on making the best 50 hr experience possible -similar to original trilogy in that regard - instead of trying to create this 100+ hr "open world" sandbox. By trying to stretch mission across different systems (like "Contagion" or "Life on the Frontier"), it feels artificially swollen with "things to do". If they really focused the 18 months development time on the characters, their respective companion missions, and the main plot it would have had a tighter feel to the narrative. Also, I wouldn't have killed off Alec right away but would have let him survive until about 75% into the game so that his inevitable loss would have had more weight. Lots of character and story beats they missed that, if landed, would have improved the story. But, I could say that for all three games as well. When I play ME:A now, I just avoid most side-missions and tasks I feel unnecessary and edit the experience however I want which, coincidentally, ends up being around 45 hrs.
Like I said earlier, I plan to do a whole "Mass Effect" series playthrough starting Nov 7th so I won't have time for "AC: Origins" or "Wolfenstein II" meaning, as the year comes to a close, I didn't experience many games better than ME:A
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Deleted
inherit
guest@proboards.com
5402
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
Deleted
0
Nov 25, 2024 21:30:55 GMT
January 1970
Deleted
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 1, 2017 17:24:26 GMT
Based on all the games I've played this year - Final Fantasy XV, Prey, Resident Evil VII, Shadow of War, Horizon Zero Dawn - the only one that I've played and enjoyed more than Mass Effect Andromeda is Horizon Zero Dawn. All the others had their pluses but they weren't as fun. Despite this, I recognize its flaws and could understand why someone may not enjoy it as much. They really should have focused on making the best 50 hr experience possible -similar to original trilogy in that regard - instead of trying to create this 100+ hr "open world" sandbox. By trying to stretch mission across different systems (like "Contagion" or "Life on the Frontier"), it feels artificially swollen with "things to do". If they really focused the 18 months development time on the characters, their respective companion missions, and the main plot it would have had a tighter feel to the narrative. Also, I wouldn't have killed off Alec right away but would have let him survive until about 75% into the game so that his inevitable loss would have had more weight. Lots of character and story beats they missed that, if landed, would have improved the story. But, I could say that for all three games as well. When I play ME:A now, I just avoid most side-missions and tasks I feel unnecessary and edit the experience however I want which, coincidentally, ends up being around 45 hrs. Like I said earlier, I plan to do a whole "Mass Effect" series playthrough starting Nov 7th so I won't have time for "AC: Origins" or "Wolfenstein II" meaning, as the year comes to a close, I didn't experience many games better than ME:A Have you given "Divinty Original Sin 2" a try. That game has me hooked! |
|
it's one thing I can't stand about the halo fanbase. People aren't all of a sudden liking H4 because of H5 being bad, they merely have a new target to hit so the previous one is forgotten. It's like DA2 hasn't all of a sudden gotten better, people have simply forgotten about it with inquisitions release and the same applies to ME3 (to an extent anyways, an abomination ending won't be easy to forget when it's meant to be the conclusion to a series).
Be seeing you.
